Myanmar

At the outset, Sir, let me extend to Mr. Opertti the felicitations of my delegation on his unanimous election to the presidency of the General Assembly at its fifty-third session. We are confident that under his experienced leadership we will be able to achieve substantive progress in the deliberations of this Assembly. I should also like to take this opportunity to pay a well-deserved tribute to his predecessor, Mr. Hennadiy Udovenko, who presided over one of the most eventful sessions of the General Assembly. In particular, I would like to express our gratitude for his skilful stewardship of our deliberations on the reform package of the Secretary- General, which led to the successful completion of an important phase in the United Nations reform process. Last year the Secretary-General presented us with his most comprehensive and far-reaching proposals for the strengthening and reinvigoration of this Organization. We were also able to adopt two landmark resolutions, 52/12 A and 52/12 B, during the substantive part of the fifty- second session to enable us to reform this Organization and to introduce new mechanisms, including the Office of Deputy Secretary-General, to improve its performance. With these new mechanisms, the Organization has been able to renew the emphasis on economic, social and development activities. We are pleased that we have Ms. Fréchette, an outstanding person with vast experience, as the first Deputy Secretary-General of the Organization. Early this year we were able to take further steps to move forward the reform process, a process that is still continuing. We would like to thank the Secretary-General for his timely submission of reports and additional explanations in response to resolution 52/12 B. We hope that the untiring efforts of the Secretary-General will push forward the ongoing process. As a developing nation, we hope that the reform process will strengthen the ability of the United Nations to fulfil its role and functions in the field of development and to respond effectively to the development needs of the developing countries. In this respect, the establishment of a Development Account under the reform process is a welcome step. Forward movement in the overall reform of the United Nations is not matched by similar progress in the reform of the Security Council. We are somewhat disheartened over the lack of tangible results on the core issues in the deliberations of the Open-ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation on and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters Related to the Security Council. I am sure that every State Member of this Organization shares the view that the reform of the Security Council is one of the most crucial aspects of the entire United Nations reform process. This process will be considered by the world community as seriously inadequate, and much less genuine, if we fail to produce a Security Council that is truly representative of the present membership of this Organization and can effectively respond to future challenges. We do not believe that a body that is not democratic and representative can really look after the interests of the broad membership in its cardinal task of maintaining international peace and security. 11 We all have been engaged in in-depth and intensive discussions of the various aspects of the Security Council reform for almost five years now. Although we had had high hopes that the latest rounds of discussions of the Working Group would produce general agreement on the more contentious issues related to the Security Council, the desired goal remains elusive. We nevertheless are gratified to note that the Working Group has made encouraging headway in its deliberations on measures conducive to improving the working methods and transparency of the Council?s activities. We believe that expansion of the Security Council in a balanced manner is one of the main elements of Security Council reform. We are discouraged by the fact that it is on this core element that substantive differences among the delegations still remain. These fundamental differences have proved to be a major obstacle to our forward movement towards a general agreement on a common package. As a member of the Non-Aligned Movement, we in general subscribe to the common position of the Movement on Security Council reform. However, we wish to make some observations on certain core issues on which we feel we should register our position. First of all, my delegation wishes to emphasize that the objective of the entire process of Security Council reform is not the mere addition of a couple of countries to its permanent membership. Although it has been accepted in principle that three permanent seats should be allotted to developing countries from Asia, Africa and Latin America, the mode of their identification and selection, despite various suggestions and concepts on the table, seems intractable at this juncture and remains unsettled. Myanmar would view with concern any move or measure biased towards particular candidates. Myanmar believes that countries which are capable of contributing to international peace and security should be permanent members in the expanded Council. We also favour the expansion of the Security Council in both permanent and non-permanent memberships. We are now being provided with an historic opportunity to devise ways of selecting new permanent members for the Security Council. Although there has been noticeably strong support for expansion of the Security Council in its permanent category, we have not been able to translate various ideas on this question into a viable formula acceptable to all. In this connection, the idea of rotating new permanent members, which the Organization of African Unity has decided to apply to the African countries, is a very significant concept. There appear to be a growing number of States attracted to it, and Myanmar is one of those countries. This is a concept submitted by a particular region for itself and not meant for export to other regions. Nevertheless, we should not rule out the concept as one of the possible options applicable to other regions such as Asia, in the event that other modalities of selection or options fail to command enough support. It is vitally important that expansion of the Security Council in both categories of membership take place simultaneously for all regions. Myanmar is one of the 74 members of the Organization which has never been a member of the Security Council. However deficient in its present structure and undemocratic in its practice the Security Council may be, its role in the maintenance of international peace and security and the contribution made by its members are highly appreciated by the Union of Myanmar. Myanmar has therefore always given serious attention to the annual election of five non-permanent members of the Security Council. At the same time, to enhance the role of non- permanent members, now generally looked upon as peripheral, we could seek a solution by improving the working methods of the Security Council. Inextricably linked to the expansion of the permanent membership of the Security Council is the veto. Debate on this question has been continuing both outside and inside the Organization since before the founding of the United Nations. Nevertheless, little has been done in the years since then to rectify its injustice. Given the present state of the discussions, the question promises to haunt us in the future, regardless of how strongly we may feel about the practice. While a large majority of Member States are demanding its curtailment and eventual elimination, permanent members continue to be entrenched in their position that they cannot accept any diminution of their rights and prerogatives, including the veto. In the context of extending the veto to new permanent members, two main views have emerged. One view argues for its extension to new permanent members. In their opinion, the new members will be inferior without the veto. The other view states that the enjoyment of the veto, as now constituted, by the new permanent members would entail setbacks. Therefore, to limit the veto in scope and application for the moment with a view 12 to its eventual abolishment is, in their view, necessary. In this connection, there have been many sensible suggestions to curtail the veto?s scope and application. They are very interesting indeed. The most sensible of them, in our view, is the idea of curtailing its application to issues that fall under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. In fact, the provisions of Chapter VII are the rationale of the Security Council. Myanmar has consistently held the view that the veto is unjust and anachronistic and that its ultimate elimination is the most logical conclusion. However, we accept that it is unrealistic to eliminate the veto at present. We therefore consider it unfair and discriminatory to deny the veto to new permanent members until we can seal the fate of this unwanted relic of the past. We strongly feel that new members should be endowed with the same rights and prerogatives now enjoyed by the current permanent members. I have dealt at some length with the United Nations reform process. I have done so because the effective functioning of the United Nations in fulfilling its role and objectives is of critical importance to developing countries like mine. It is here at the United Nations that developing countries have sovereign equality with big and powerful countries. It is here at the United Nations that we have to maintain and safeguard time-bound principles such as settling international disputes by peaceful means; refraining in international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State; and refraining from intervention in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State. These are principles that are of the utmost importance to developing countries like Myanmar so that they can have independence not only in name but also in reality. Only a United Nations that is genuinely democratic will ensure that these principles are neither diluted nor made flexible to serve the domestic political needs of big and powerful nations. In the age of a single super-Power, we are witnessing too often attempts to use the United Nations as a political tool of the big and powerful nations. Too often we are seeing the will of the international community become synonymous with that of the single most powerful nation or a group of powerful nations. Only a United Nations that is genuinely representative can look after not only the interest of big and powerful nations but also the interest of the whole United Nations membership, including the weakest among them. That is why we place so much importance on the United Nations reform process. We had high hopes that the end of the cold war would usher in a new international order. We had high hopes that resources used for the arms race could be diverted to development activities. We had hoped for peace and tranquillity to prevail worldwide. Instead we see instability and conflict in most regions of the world — the crisis in the Middle East, the tragedy in Bosnia, in Kosovo, in Angola, in the Sudan and in Afghanistan, to cite just a few. In many of these situations, the United Nations had to spend millions and millions of dollars in its peacekeeping efforts. This has caused a serious drain on the resources of the Organization, whose finances were already in dire circumstances mainly because of a single Member that had withheld its contributions for domestic political reasons. It would be a truism to say that the United Nations and its operations are overstretched. Much of its resources have been diverted from development activities, expenditures that could be put to more useful purposes for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples. In spite of this situation, there are those who would like to use the United Nations to interfere in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of Myanmar. The present Government assumed State responsibility to restore stability and normalcy to the country when it was in a state of chaos and anarchy. In the last few years the Government has restored stability to the country. The insurgency, which has burdened the country for the last 50 years, is now almost a thing of the past. Peace and tranquillity prevail throughout nearly the whole country. These are hard-earned achievements, especially for a multi-ethnic nation such as Myanmar. We have attained stability in Myanmar through our own endeavours. We have not imposed any burden on the international community. We are therefore very much distressed that there are those who would like to use the United Nations to intervene in matters that are essentially within our domestic jurisdiction. It was the General Assembly itself which adopted numerous resolutions, including the resolution on the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, which reaffirms the sovereign and inalienable right of each and every State to choose its economic and political systems. We in Myanmar have chosen the path of democracy. It is also an irony that at a time when Myanmar has openly and repeatedly declared that it is now in the 13 process of building a genuine democratic State with a market-oriented economic system, political pressure has been put on us by those who not only would like us to adopt democracy but would also like to transplant a democracy according to their own mould. It is unfortunate that these proponents of a particular type of democracy would like to use the United Nations to interfere in our domestic political process. We in Myanmar strongly believe that the path we have chosen is the right one and is the most suitable to our tradition, to our culture, to our national ethos and, most importantly, to the aspirations of our people. We shall resolutely continue our endeavours to build a modern, democratic, peaceful and prosperous nation in Myanmar. Nevertheless, there are some who entertain concerns that difficulties relating to human rights practices in one country could create economic problems in another. In fact, such transborder human movements occurred among neighbouring countries in the past for various reasons. The important aspect is that there must be the will to resolve and overcome such difficulties through mutual understanding and respect. The idea of relying on others to resolve our own domestic problems should be discouraged. We still live in an unsettled post-cold-war period where pockets of rising tensions still exist. We are also confronted with a vast array of major problems awaiting solutions. Since we last met, we have witnessed developments that give cause for hope as well as for deep concern. As the only multilateral forum to deal with the problems of peace and development, the enhanced role of the United Nations is now more necessary than ever. We all have trust in the Organization?s capability to avert catastrophes of all kinds and to find global solutions to the major problems of the world. We also have trust in our capacity to work together. It is imperative to redouble our concerted efforts if we are to be successful in the creation of a peaceful and prosperous world order. In this common task, Myanmar pledges, as a responsible Member of the United Nations, to continue its strong support for the endeavours of the Organization to promote the economic and social advancement of mankind and reaffirms its commitments to the purposes and principles of the Charter.